AAFF

The Asian American Federation of Florida (AAFF) is a 501(c)(3) coalition that aims to
unity and collaboration among the various Asian Pacific American organizations and to improve the relationship of a culturally diverse Asian Pacific American community in Florida. The AAFF is a statewide organization made
up of more than 70 Bangladesh, Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Iranian,
Korean, Laotian, Taiwanese, Thai, Turkish and Vietnamese community-based organizations,
businesses and media.

The 2011 legislative session began March 8 and ended on May 6. An estimated 15 proposals were made by the state legislature; seven were referred to the statewide ballot. Remaining proposals may be reconsidered during the 2012 legislative session.

In 2010, the legislature referred a similar measure to the 2010 statewide ballot. However, the measure was removed from the ballot by court order on July 29, 2010. Leon County Circuit Judge James Shelfer said the measure was misleading and could confuse voters. On August 31 the Florida Supreme Court upheld previous lower court decisions to throw out Amendment 9. "The ballot language put forth … contains misleading and ambiguous language. Currently our only recourse is to strike the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot," said the justices. The 2010 legislation was sponsored by Rep. Scott Plakon and Sen. Carey Baker. According to reports in November 2010 the 2012 proposal does not include wording that was found questionable by judges in 2010. Specifically judges questioned the following statement (which is not included in the 2012 proposed text): "ensure access to health care services without waiting lists, protect the doctor/patient relationship,” and ”guard against mandates that don’t work."

Support
Supporters of the proposed measure argue that the federal health care law is an abuse of federal power, in part due to the requirements that people buy health insurance. Sponsor of the measure Rep. Scott Plakon said, "I say keep your hands off my freedom.

Opposition
Opponents of the proposal argue that a constitutional amendment may not ensure that citizens can opt out of the individual mandate set forth by the federal reform. They argue that the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution would override the state laws, making the proposed amendment a moot point

The proposed measure would allow for property tax discounts for disabled veterans. This bill explicitly extends the rights to ad valorem tax discounts, made available in 2010 to all veterans who were residents of Florida prior to their service, to all combat-disabled veterans currently living in Florida whether they were residents prior to their service or not. The proposed measure requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption.

In order to qualify for the November 2012 ballot the proposed amendment required approval by a minimum of 60% in the both the House and the Senate. The bill was referred to the ballot following unanimous votes in both the House and the Senate. On May 2 the Senate voted 38-0, while the House voted 117-0 on May 4.

Florida State Revenue Limitation, Amendment 3 Replaces existing revenue limits with a new limitation based on inflation and population changes

A Florida State Revenue Limitation, Amendment 3, also known as SJR 958 and "Smart Cap", proposes replacing existing revenue limits with a new limitation based on inflation and population change. Any funds that exceed the revenue limits would be placed in the state's "rainy day fund." Once the fund reaches 10% of the prior year's total budget the Florida State Legislature would be required to vote to either provide tax relief or reduce property taxes. The proposed measure requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption.

Background

The proposed legislation is modeled after Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights which limited state revenue using a formula based on population growth and inflation. The measure was approved in Colorado in 1992. In 2000 an amendment to Amendment 23 required education spending to increase and in 2005 voters approved a ballot measure that loosened many of TABOR's restrictions. However, in 2008 voters rejected Colorado Initiative 126, also known as Amendment 59, which would have extended the 2005 amendment past it's 2010 date.

Support

Senate President Mike Haridopolos is a long-time supporter of "Smart Cap." On February 24, 2011 he said, "Florida’s families are forced to spend their money responsibly and so should state government. Historically government has spent more when times are good and then been forced to make dramatic cuts when the economy takes a downturn. The ‘Smart Cap’ amendment ensures the state budget doesn’t grow beyond a family’s ability to pay for it."

Opposition

Opponents include groups like the AARP and the League of Women Voters. Jack McRay of the AARP said the proposed revenue cap could prevent government services from keeping up with demand. On March 2, 2011 the League of Women Voters officially announced their opposition to SJR 958. "The League has opposed this bill since it was first introduced in Florida in 2008. TABOR has been brought up and defeated in more than twenty states; the only state to pass TABOR is Colorado," said the league.

The proposed amendment would prohibit increases in the assessed value of homestead property if the fair market value of the property decreases; reduces the limitation on annual assessment increases to non-homestead property; and provides an additional homestead exemption. Specifically, non-homestead or commercial property would have their assessment increases capped at 3 percent per year. The property tax rate would also be lowered to 10 percent for rental and 5 percent for commercial properties. According to reports, this will put non-homestead or commercial property owners in line with the benefit received by homestead owners. Additionally, the measure would implement an additional homestead exemption for first-time buyers equal to 50 percent of the median home price in the county. The additional exemption, however, would be gradually reduced until it expires within 5 years.

Proposed change to Amendment 4:

In mid-November 2011Sen. David Simmons proposed legislators amend or replace the language in Amendment 4. Simmons argues that the amendment will "penalize new home ownership." The proposed revision, SJR 314, would lower the super exemption. The super exemption would be tiered at 30 percent for homes under $200,000 and 15 percent for property between $200,000 and $400,000. Simmons has been working with the Florida Association of Counties, opponents of the current proposal, to amend the language.

The proposed measure is also known as new version of HJR 7111. The original proposal called for splitting the state Supreme Court, however that bill was modified in early April 2011. The current bill proposes that three justices be added to the seven-member court. Additionally, two divisions - civil and criminal - would be created within the high court with five justices each. The governor would be in charge of appointing the chief justices for each division and two would alternate as chief justice of the entire court. Appointees would have to be confirmed by the Senate. The proposed legislation also grants the House access to investigative files of the Judicial Qualifications Commission and sets aside at least 2.25 percent of the state's general revenue to fund the judicial branch.

According to the originally filed legislation's text (HJR 7111), the measure would abolish the current Florida Supreme Court and create a Supreme Court of Civil Appeals and Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals. Each of the new supreme courts would have five appointed justices.[ Three of the most senior justices currently in the Florida Supreme Court would be transferred to the new Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals. The remaining four current justices would be transferred to the new Supreme court of Civil Appeals. The governor would be responsible for appointing three new justices to fill the remaining openings in the courts.
HJR 7111 was later modified to the version that will appear on the statewide ballot. The new text wouldn't split the state's high court.

In late April a Senate committee SJR 2084, a proposal to reduce the vote threshold required for the legislature to enact a law repealing a rule of court. Additionally, it would prohibit the Florida Supreme Court from readopting a rule repealed by the legislature for a prescribed period.

Asked in late November if he would continuing pursuing the split of the Florida Supreme Court (HJR 7111), House Speaker Dean Cannon said "I don't think so, not to the same degree as last session."

Support
The proposed measure, according to reports, is supported by the Florida Chamber of Commerce. Civil Justice Chairman Eric Eisnagle said dividing the Florida Supreme Court into two branches would speed the review of both criminal cases and civil litigation. He said, "This bill is intended to bring more efficiency to the high court's ability to address all types of cases."Opposition

The proposal has garnered opposition from judges across the state and The Florida Bar, the legal group that represents the state's 90,000 lawyers.

The proposed measure would prohibit the use of public funds for abortions except as required by federal law and to save the mother's life. Additionally, the measure stipulates that the state constitution cannot be interpreted to include broader rights to abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution.
The Senate bill version (SJR 1538) is sponsored by Sen. Anitere Flores, while the House bill (HJR 1179) is sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley. HJR 1179 was referred to the ballot.
The proposed measure requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption.

Path to the ballot

In order to qualify for the November 2012 ballot the proposed amendment requires approval by a minimum of 60% in the both the House and the Senate.

On March 28, 2011 the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-2 in favor of the proposed measure. Previously, the proposal was approved by the Senate Health Regulation Committee following a 8-4 vote on March 14. On April 15 the Senate Rules Committee voted 9 to 3 in favor; sending the proposal to the Senate floor.
The House version, HJR 1179, of the proposed legislation was approved by the House on April 27 following a 82-35 vote. A day later, on April 28, the Senate voted 27-12 in favor of referring the measure to the ballot. However, the Senate amended the proposed legislation, therefore the measure must be approved by the House one last time. On May 4 the House approved the amended bill thus referring the bill to the ballot. The House voted 79-34

The proposed measure would prevent individuals from being barred from participating in public programs if they choose to use public funds at a religious provider. Essentially, the measure moves to repeal the state's ban of public dollars for religious funding, also known as the "Blaine Amendment." The measure requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption.

The measure first appeared as Amendment 7, but on December 14, 2011 Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis ruled that the legislatively-proposed measure would no longer be on the 2012 ballot. However, a new state law which was not overturned by the lawsuit allows the Florida Attorney General to rewrite the proposal. This must have been done within 10 days, according to that law, which it was.